Conservative Jedi

Thursday, May 31, 2012

In a classy and friendly atmosphere hosted by President Obama at the White House the 44th president of the United States paid tribute to his predecessor, and while he managed to sound bipartisan for all of two minutes, Obama still managed to throw in a tinge of disrespect about how the economy wasn't his fault before joining George W. Bush to unveil his presidential portrait.

On a day that was supposed to honor a former president that did his best to secure and protect America, the sitting narrcicist in the Oval office couldn't resist being a typical spiteful, hypocritical lefty and throw his failings on the man who preceeded him. But as was typical with his tenure, Bush was not ruffled with the flings of veiled disrespect as he does not nor never had the thin skin that afflicts the current president, as he joked with members of his old cabinet that were present as well as Obama.

Bush's class and humor after even after being strategically insulted, dispite the thin acknowledgement of his huge part in Osama bin Laden's death, shows this so-called man who resides in the White House today has simply no class.

How many times has a Republican president been asked to apologize to an insulted nation? Another thing is how many times does the White House have to "clarify" what such a "brilliant orator" has said or misspoken about?

Mark Levin Calls for Sharpton to be Fired for 'Accusing Republicans of Genocide'

I'm going to have to go with Mark Levin on this one (surprise!) Because in all honesty, when Rush Limbaugh wrongfully called Sandra Fluke a "slut" for wanting taxpayers to subsidize birth-control in healthcare (although otherwise he had a point in his condemnation of the lefts lack of self-control and responsibility) the national media made it a coast-to-coast crisis (again, without taking Bill Maher's open misogyny to task-with some even openly defending it).

Levin, a conservative radio talk-show host called for Al Sharpton to be fired for accusing Republicans of genocide.

I won't go that far. I'm of the opinion that Sharpton should apologize as Limbaugh and all those on the right are forced to do when the uptight left overreacts to anything they don't like to hear. But unlike the left, I'm not calling for Sharpton's firing or any kind of forcible removal. I figure one time he'll go to far (as he's bound to do) and the advertisers or eventually MSNBC brass will do that themselves. Even they have to realize, as they did with Kieth Olbermann, that ratings equal advertisers. And with Sharpton's ever-so dwindling ratings, the time will come when even the far-left NBC Universe will have had enough of his baseless, accusatory rants.

The lefts unabated, unsubstantiated and continually undenounced shameful rhetoric of the rights comparison to Adolph Hitler or Nazism in general gets more and more disgusting and offensive to survivors of real Nazi genocide every single time I hear it. And yes, it is just as shameful when the right does it to the left. Although one or two signs at some sort of partisan political event is not even comparable to the lefts asinine accusations as a collective.

Until (and I won't hold my breath) the left-wing media is taken to account for their silence, which will be construed as whole-hearted uniformity with the redonkulous lefts juxtaposition there will not be, nor can there be any fruitful discourse between the two ideologies. And as Levin pointed out, as right-wing media members have always pointed out, with absolutely no response or acknowledgement from the left whatsoever, why aren't Sharpton, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Bill Press and the like ever called on for their divisive, misleading and hateful comments? EVER!?

But fire Sharpton? Nah. Eventually he and his lack of ratings will do that.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Happy Memorial Day

How Liberals Stack the Deck Against Conservatives

With his point proved when he was on Piers Morgan Tonight to promote his new book, The Tyranny of Cliches (an interview for which with MRCTV can be seen here) after Morgan threw a gasket and denied his bias and ideology, author Jonah Goldberg here how about how not only the media and academia control the narrative and therefore thought structure on the average person-and especially those of university going-age, he opines about how the political left does their best to hide their true leanings through mischaracterization.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Al Sharpton At His Most Paranoid

I guess fanning then flames of racial tension with the George Zimmerman case isn't getting the race riots started fast enough for the biggest racist on the planet, so Al Sharpton decided to up the ante on his show by proclaiming that conservatives (I guess only white conservatives) think that blacks are sub-human and that they shoulds be rounded up and disposed of. it seems the more disgusting this a-hole gets,the more the media ignores him.

It sounds a bit like Sharpton and his BSNBC buddy Sgt. Schultz got their memes mixed up. I really didn't think Sharpton was this nuts. Ed Schultz? Absolutely. Sharpton? I knew he was a transparent racist (in fact the biggest one going) but a conspiracist? Wow.

By the way, if Sharpton wants to discuss real black genocide, perhaps he should take a gander at some
statistics brought up by a commentor at the end of this piece:

Number of blacks killed by lynching in the U.S. between 1864 and 1968 [104 years]: 4,946 (47.7 per year).

Number of black babies killed by abortion between 1973 and 2011 [38 years]: 17,653,000 (currently 470,000 per year)

Ratio of black babies killed by abortion to blacks killed by lynching: 3,569 to 1.

If Sharpton wants to talk about black genocide, he need look no further than Planned Parenthood.
Start by asking them why they don't talk about their founder, Margaret Sanger.

Will Schools Granholm on Difference Between Solyndra and Bain Capital

In another example of why the All-Powerful Obama isn't-by showing you exactly how economically dense his members of his economic team are (and by extension how dense his picks to "fix" the economy were) when George Will had to remind (or teach) Jennifer Grandholm about the slight differences between Solyndra and Bain Capital.

By the way, have you wondered yet about how many jobs Obama cost with Solyndra? He keeps costing people their jobs, the more his handlers and he want to get as far away from his economic record as possible. That's why they continue to attack Romney's economic experience instead of championing Obama's; because Obama doesn't have one. Obama knows it, his people know it and America knows it. The best part is, Obama knows America knows.

Krugman Advocates Lying to the Public to Implement "Alien" Theory

Ok. I finally found a use for the useless Paul Krugman. He must be how arrogant know-it-all liberals and whack-job "progressives" (classicly speaking, there is a difference) see conservatives. I guess they think we're all insane status-quo facists that really want to harm and lie to the country. Well, that's exactly what Paul Krugman (the New York Times resident Nobel Prize winner for economics, so that shows you how totally irelevent that tin cereal-box medal is) is and to prove it, here how he described in all seriousness to Bill Maher his plan to rectify the economy by lying to the country in order to implement Barack Obama's depression-inducing plan to "spread the wealth" and forever destroy the future of America's children.

So the next time you liberals want to make fun of how "dumb" conservatives are (after the records of your brilliant leaders who really had a great time with the economy with absolutely no understanding of the free market) and Paul Krugman is your go-to guy on how to stimulate anything, remember this and remember this guy is your pick to speak for you.

Media Mum on Obama Delegate Barry's Racial Slur

Leave it to the mainstream media to keep everyone in the dark about an Obama delegate and former disgraced Democrat mayor once again insulting minorities just after he had done it twice already in the last few months. Marion Barry strikes again.

Salon Editor Smears Deceased Conservative Blogger and His Followers

Too prove yet again how disgustingly low the left will go to smear the those no longer with us so as not defend themselves, Salon magazine editor Joan Walsh took a swipe at the deceased and beloved conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart because, you know that's o.k and she's used to it, made it perfectly clear her disdain for her enemies and especially deceased ones or their followers that work on discreding and exposing hags in the liberal media like Walsh herself that continue to walk the thin line between professional mud-slinger and Obama apologist.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Wasserman-Schultz Again Contradicts Her Own Bizarre Analogy

As much as people want to believe President Barack Obama saved the the American auto industry, however he did, it was helped along by laying off people (instead of letting the free market do it's thing and letting the companies fail) Mitt Romney did the same with Bain Capital and despite Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ridiculous attempt at parlaying a "apples to coconuts" analogy is taken to task for it.
This woman either can't back up her own statements five seconds after she says them or denies them all together. Amazing. And she's the best they have? I mean Joe Biden can look this foolish and it would save the Dems from doling out two cheques.

Still No word by Networks on Catholic Church Lawsuit Against Obama Administration

Other than a mere 19-second "report" of the lawsuit by CBS, the three networks have chosen to ignore the "historic" lawsuit by the Catholic Church (as the networks themselves would say if they chose to do their jobs and the President were a Republican) but they sure are expedient on reporting another child abuse scandal and "massive cover-up." You'd figure that story, which is indeed newsworthy, would at least remind them of the other.

"...the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.

The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a “best estimate of what Obama inherited”, but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.

But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).

Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased ass who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.

Cool is Where It's At

A great piece by Victor David Hanson over at National Review Online. It pretty much in essence mirrors what I've saying about the Occupy movement and the media's double standard in their favor against the Barack Obama/George W. Bush comparisons, the Tea Party, the free market and anyone who dares to point out the transparent hypocrisy of it all.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Well, well, well. It seems that the media's race-baiting narrative and mission of demonizing George Zimmerman has taken on yet more flavor reminiscent of the classic cases of Tawana Brawley and the Duke non-rape cases. People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, "Toure," certain CNN hosts and all at MSNBC probably won't like to hear (and undoubtedly those at The Mess will simply deny, ignore or spin) this little tidbit released about so-called racist George Zimmerman testifying against the Sanford police department in defense of a homeless black man just last year.

Tingle is Off His Meds Again

According to the brain disease ravaged Chris Matthews, he actually thinks, moreover said on live national television, that and I quote, it's a fact Barack Obama is not a reckless spender. Oh yeah and that federal spending is rising at the slowest rate in sixty, count 'em sixty years. Oh. My. Ribs.

With a theory that you would have to be a perennial Bush hater like Chris Tingle to have it make any sense whatsoever, Matthews actually said it with a straight face and I'm sure he may have actually convinced maybe...a third of his misinformed audience. Which is to say about, meh, 15 people. Good for you Tingle. You keep on swingin'.

UPDATE: As expected, Sgt. Ed Schultz, BSNBC's resident go-to ignoramus who can always be counted upon to make things soooooo easy for the right to totally decimate any laughable argument the clowns at The Mess futilely put forth, as well as the so-called "rhodes scholar" and reigning queen of arrogance Rachel Maddow jumped on board with Matthews endorsement of the bogus Market Watch report that Obama has the lowest federal spending of the last five presidents. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also predictably used the Rex Nutting piece to desperately jump on any flotation device from the Titanic-like spending of the president. Anne Coulter, a favourite target of the left, because she actually knows what she's talking about-like all the intelligencia of the right-also put things in perspective.

Nice try Messies, but once again there's no such thing as fake but accurate.

Nothing to See Here: CNN's O'Brien Sidesteps Obama's Hypocrisy on Romney and Bain

Once again, Obama water-carrier Soledad O'Brien of CNN has done her best to blatanly disreguard her basic perameters as a journalist and objectivity when she went out of her way to ignore President Obama's involvement with another company that did business with Bain Capital. As the left is infamous for their attempts at guilt by association, it stands to reason why O'Brien didn't take her colleague, Anderson Cooper's-to his credit-example of grilling of the Obama administration the night before on the obvious hypocrisy of being in bed with the private investment firm.

Knowing the Way

Form a website that will remain nameless (but is a good one) I am re-printing, albeit without permission, a comment left by a reader that must be shared. This guy has it dead on."We have lost our ambition . . ." - Barrack Hussien Obama

Dear President Obama,

You do know that the Hoover Dam was built without one union worker and it was decades before the EPA was even a synaptic glow in some liberal democrats cranium. Look, it’s one thing to spend a large portion of your Presidency seeking to complete the economic socialization of our medical care, it is quite another to kick America in the collective teeth by saying we do not measure up to those that have come before. American business men and women work hard every day to make a profit and provide opportunity to tens of millions of people plus the added benefit of providing all of the goods and services that American citizens, and our governments small and large, depend on to function.

I wonder if a good test of what it takes to be President is to successfully run a business, attract new customers and make a profit for a few years. Herman Cain has this box clearly checked and so does Mr. Romney, but for my money I would have rather gone with Cain. Why? Because he was in the trench and not looking at it from a fifty story window. Yet you Sir have yet to even learn how to properly prepare a Chalupa in under seven seconds with the correct toppings and package same in a sanitary manner; much less create a restaurant that hires people creates a product and sells it at a profit. In fact if you did attempt to do this I wonder who would give you a loan. In your first real job you’ve invested in solar power companies, nationalized GM and forced the production of more coal cars, I mean electric cars, and you signed “Obamacare” which is guaranteed to lead to higher costs and less quality health care for all.

A businesses goal is not to spread misery and force people to pay for it while borrowing rail road cars full of cash for no particular purpose. It is to make a profit. It would appear that the federal governments primary goal is to financially abuse the American people, for apparently no particular purpose, other then to suite the needs of some whimsical fantasy of people who think that Man has altered the climate of the planet Earth. And you people call us crazy? Look, we are all a bit tired of your ideas and decisions. We are working hard to find someone to replace you such that we don’t end up with an individual just like you, or not able to handle the job. That’s a tall order. But the American people are all about filling the tallest of orders from Bowling Green, Kentucky, to Ripon, Wisconsin, and on down to Fort Worth, Texas. From World War 1 all the way to this war against Islamo Fascism. We are the most productive and noble nation on the face of the Earth. If we want to maximize that production we must get off of everyones back, and let those with the wealth create the jobs that the poorest among us will climb the ladder of success to reach. The dumbest thing you could do is tell us that we are somehow not up to that task, but there’s is always tomorrow.

On November 6, 2012, and beyond we are going to demonstrate with authority just how up to the task we are and how you proved without a shadow of a doubt that you never were.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Was Walter Kronkite Not the Bastion of Honesty and Objectivity?

We'll see how this plays out, but in a new bio about long-time CBS newsman Walter Kronkite, it seems his and in following to his measure, the MSM's as a whole, has been exposed as it has been percieved by most of the public in the last 10 years (at least) as the bias social-engineering machine it is.

I wouldn't want to think of Kronkite as bias in general. Not that that I would have known any better when I saw him on CBS as a kid, as I would have been no older than the ages of seven to 10 years old before he retired, as I and everyone else who saw the man as measuring stick as objectivity wouldn't want to have that legacy diminished. But if it turns out he was just the template of of todays MSM and was even unknowingly misguiding the public towards his line of thought, or worse, opinion, then it adds more credibility to the right's complaints and indeed questioning of the sincerity and credibilty of todays news.

Kronkite quotes that bare out his liberla bias:

Wishing for “One World Government;” U.S. Must “Give Up Some of Our Sovereignty” to the UN:

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to give up some of our sovereignty....“Time will not wait. Democracy, civilization itself, is at stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of our global community from the present anarchic system of war and ever more destructive weaponry to a new system governed by a democratic U.N. federation.....“Our failure to live up to our obligations to the U.N. is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing.”— Excerpts from a speech by Cronkite to the World Federalist Association on October 19, 1999. Published the December 3, 1999 Washington Times.

“System of World Government is Mandatory”

“If we are to avoid that catastrophe [a nuclear World War III], a system of world order — preferably a system of world government — is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the co“Gawd Almighty,” Shout “the Truths” of Liberalism:

“I know liberalism isn't dead in this country. It simply has, temporarily we hope, lost its voice....We know that unilateral action in Grenada and Tripoli was wrong. We know that 'Star Wars' means uncontrollable escalation of the arms race. We know that the real threat to democracy is the half of the nation in poverty. We know that no one should tell a woman she has to bear an unwanted child....Gawd Almighty, we've got to shout these truths in which we believe from the housetops. Like that scene in the movie 'Network,' we've got to throw open our windows and shout these truths to the streets and the heavens. And I bet we'll find more windows are thrown open to join the chorus than we'd ever dreamed possible.”— Cronkite, at a November People for the American Way banquet. Quoted in the December 5, 1988 Newsweek.

Journalists Liberal Because They're Nice and They Care:

“I think they [most reporters] are on the humane side, and that would appear to many to be on the liberal side. A lot of newspaper people — and to a lesser degree today, the TV people — come up through the ranks, through the police-reporting side, and they see the problems of their fellow man, beginning with their low salaries — which newspaper people used to have anyway — and right on through their domestic quarrels, their living conditions. The meaner side of life is made visible to most young reporters. I think it affects their sentimental feeling toward their fellow man and that is interpreted by some less-sensitive people as being liberal.”— Cronkite to Time magazine's Richard Zoglin in an interview published in the magazine's November 3, 2003 edition.

“I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities – the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated. We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism – that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased.”— Cronkite in his debut as a syndicated columnist, August 6, 2003.

News People “Should Be Liberal”

Caller: “You've been quoted as saying that you felt that most journalists were liberal, in fact that a good journalist was by nature a liberal.”Walter Cronkite: “I define liberal as a person who is not doctrinaire. That is a dictionary definition of liberal. That's opposed to 'liberal' as part of the political spectrum....open to change, constantly, not committed to any particular creed or doctrine, or whatnot, and in that respect I think that news people should be liberal.”— Exchange on CNN's Larry King Live, September 11, 1995.

Advises Kerry: Be Proud of Your Liberalism:

“When the National Journal said your Senate record makes you one of the most liberal members of the Senate, you called that ‘a laughable characterization' and ‘the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life.' Wow!...What are you ashamed of? Are you afflicted with the Dukakis syndrome — that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more?...If 1988 taught us anything, it is that a candidate [like Dukakis] who lacks the courage of his convictions cannot hope to convince the nation that he should be given its leadership....Take my advice and lay it all out, before it's too late.”— Cronkite in a syndicated column fashioned as an open letter to the presumed Democratic nominee, titled “Dear Senator Kerry...,” published in the March 21, 2004 Denver Post.

Denounces Bush, Calls Carter “Smartest President”

At a 2003 forum at Drew University, former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, the Daily Record of Parsippany, New Jersey reported, “said he feared the war would not go smoothly, ripped the 'arrogance' of Bush and his administration and wondered whether the new U.S. doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' might lead to unintended, dire consequences.” The newspaper also relayed how Cronkite “said that the smartest President he ever met was Jimmy Carter” and that journalists tilt to the left because “they see the poverty. They see the want.”

Torquemada's “Spirit Comfortably at Home” in Ashcroft:

“Attorney General John Ashcroft has earned himself a remarkable distinction as the Torquemada of American law. Tomás de Torquemada...was largely responsible for...[the] torture and the burning of heretics — Muslims in particular. Now, of course, I am not accusing the Attorney General of pulling out anyone's fingernails or burning people at the stake (at least I don't know of any such cases). But one does get the sense these days that the old Spaniard's spirit is comfortably at home in Ashcroft's Department of Justice.”— Cronkite in his syndicated column published in the September 22, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer.

On October 13, 1998 Cronkite told CBS This Morning’s Mark McEwen that unless “peccadilloes got in the way of performing the job” we should ignore it since “I don’t think we should be digging into other people’s private lives.” Despite Monica’s favors occurring in work areas and during official phone calls, Cronkite maintained it met his “private affair” standard. Hours later at a luncheon with reporters, Cronkite called Starr’s investigation “more divisive” to the country than Vietnam, Peter Johnson reported in the October 14 USA Today. After accusing Starr of “considerable excessive zeal,” Johnson relayed that Cronkite “says he’d ‘like to get Kenneth Starr out on the boat,’ presumably to give him a piece of his mind.”

Cronkite “Had Trouble” with Reagan's Political Views

“The Fords were among the most friendly occupants of the White House, but Reagan won the affability contest hands down. I had trouble with his political philosophy, particularly his endorsement of laissez-faire trickle-down economics, the concept that if the people and industries at the top are successful, prosperity will somehow be visited on all the rest of us.”— Cronkite in his 1997 book, A Reporter's Life

Karl Rove “Probably Set Up bin Laden” Video. Cronkite charged that Karl Rove “probably” arranged for a videotaped message from Osama bin Laden to show up just before the 2004 election:

“I have a feeling that it [bin Laden’s new videotape] could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaign right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa dump, explosive dump. Right now that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.”— Cronkite on CNN’s Larry King Live, October 29, 2004

“System of World Government is Mandatory”

“If we are to avoid that catastrophe [a nuclear World War III], a system of world order — preferably a system of world government — is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty, just as America's thirteen colonies did two centuries ago. When we finally come to our senses and establish a world executive and parliament of nations, thanks to the Nuremburg precedent we will already have in place the fundamentals for the third branch of government, the judiciary.”

— Cronkite in his 1997 book, A Reporter's Life.

“Overreacted to the Soviets”

“I thought that we Americans overreacted to the Soviets and the news coverage sometimes seemed to accentuate that misdirected concern. Fear of the Soviet Union taking over the world just seemed as likely to me as invaders from Mars. Well, perhaps I was naive, but I'd seen those May Day parades and Soviet bread lines and miserable conditions hidden behind them. That war-devastated country didn't seem that threatening to me...The nuclear arms race was on in earnest. All the anti-Soviet paranoia that had been festering since the war really blew up then. A Soviet bomb was seen as an assault on us. But I saw it as part of their pursuit of nuclear equality. After all, what should we expect, that our enemy's just going to sit still there and not try to develop the bomb?”— Cronkite on the year 1948 in Part 3 of the Discovery Channel's Cronkite Remembers, January 16, 1997.

Belabored Bob Dons the Lampshade

Does Bob Scheiffer watch MSNBC? Or has he just had one too many? If he does (or has) will he admonish them for their almost nightly race-baiting tactics? One has to wonder if in fact Scheiffer has fallen in line with the leftt-wing media's Animal Farm meme of "Democrats good,Republicans bad." And the "good-cop/bad-cop" routine after trying to seem like a objective centurist is a bit tacky and labored as well. After wondering aloud in a May broadcast of Face the Nation whether "the Republican Party has moved to far to the right for its own good," because it's quite well known that there is no far-left, just "moderate progressives," it seems to me ol' Bob may want to hinder his feigning of trying to be "down the middle." And all for a campaign ad that never was. Good Lord.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Once again, as President Obama said, the similarities between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party are striking indeed.

Not only has not one single member of any Tea Party rallies nation-wide been arrested or ticketed for any sort of infraction of the law-any law-whatsoever (so much so it seems even the media has given up on trying to frame the Tea Party as miscreants of any sort) but the ongoing ignoring of the law by the Occupy movement-and the ongoing ignoring of their law-breaking by the MSM-is astounding given that they're not fooling anyone what with anyone with an internet connection and a grade five reading level can figure out what's going on.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Obama in History

You probably didn't know that President Barack Hussein Obama shaped some of the most important events in world history. That is unless of course you haven't heard the groveling, school-girl crushes of toodays liberal media of the man. And if that's true, you probably have been in a coma for the last four to six years.

But maybe the left in all their adoration for the still inexperienced (as hard as that is to believe after four years holding ther most powerful office in the world) and inefectual "leader" of the free world knew something the rest of us didn't. Here's a little history lesson I didn't know about. Maybe me and the rest of the right out there pegged the guy all wrong from the beginning. Maybe he really is the most important and powerful human being ever to live.

During his regular "Miller Time" segment on FNC's The O'Reilly Factor, comedian Dennis Miller on Wednesday reacted to President Obama's recent appearance on ABC's The View, tagging his administration as a "Kardashian presidency."

He also suggested that host Bill O'Reilly is not tough enough on Obama, as he teased the FNC host as a "fanboy."

Given Obama's failures at stumping for Democrat governors to his dismal failure to secure the Olympics for Chicago (on the first ballot) to these latest attempts at trying to pass a poor budget (that even Congressional Democrats rejected...twice) he's not really the persuasive oratory demi-god the left wants everyone to believe he is now is he?

How long do you think it would've taken the networks to blissfully report such events about a certain ex-president? And how many times during the week, if not a single broadcast?

Race Baiting Reaches Ridiculous Heights at The Mess

Who raised this guy? Seriously. He really must have graduated at the top of the class of Al Shaprton U. One of the top race-baiters at MSNBC, Toure, has apparently connected the early rejection of disco with homophobia and wait for it...racism. Unfortunately for Toure, the sales of the genre discredit his ridiculous assumptions. But whatever it takes for him to espouse his baseless bigotry and to have Andrea Mitchell allow him to try and fool people that he's some sort of relevant intellectual.

And all at the expense of the unfortunate passing of one of music's humble and talented stars. Way to go Toure! People aren't tired of this crap in the slightest. When will BSNBC understand that the masses are sick and tired of their attempted, disgusting divisiveness?

The Pot Calling the Kettle...Um, Well, You Know

The Biggest Racist on the Planet Al Sharpton is at his most hypocritical and disgusting self once again. The man who wants everyone to think he is a "reverand" as well as a "leader" of the black community has once again accused the GOP of a "long history of fear and smear." The complete phony who had his hand in perpetuating the Duke Lacrosse team non-rape case, as well as the infamous Tawana Brawley and Crown Heights riots of the late 80s and early 90s, has put his big foot in his even bigger mouth for the upteenth time without even considering his part and even genesis of racial unrest throughout the years.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Notable Quotables: The Ongoing Bias of the Liberal Media

Now the quotes from recent weeks, as featured in the May 14 Notable Quotables

"Getting Chills" Upon Hearing Obama's "Historic Words"

[VIDEO] Co-host George Stephanopoulos: "What a watershed moment. You know, whatever people think about this issue, and we know it's controversial, there's no denying when a President speaks out for the first time like that, it is history."
Co-host Robin Roberts: "And let me tell you, George, I'm getting chills again. Because when you sit in that room and you hear him say those historic words — it was not lost on anyone that was in the room."
— ABC's Good Morning America, May 10.

Too Obvious to Deny: Media "Uniformly" Back Obama on Gay Marriage

"So many people in the media seem to uniformly support same-sex marriage. Do you think that this dialogue we're having nationally doesn't adequately recognize that for many people, this is an issue that they struggle with and don't believe in?"
— Savannah Guthrie on NBC's Today, May 10.

"I think that the media is as divided on this issue as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he's never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it's very hard to lose politically."
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC's Morning Joe, May 10.

Watch Out for Evil "Wolves... Giggling With Delight"

[VIDEO] "It is a pretty profound statement by our President. I don't want to get past that too quickly. That's the good news for everybody in the country in terms of freedom and the long march towards liberalism in the country.... But there has always been another army out there that feeds on those who resent it. That army has been out there during Jim Crow. It was out there during abolition, during suffrage. There's always an army that feeds on change and feeds against it — the wolves, and they're being released right now and they're probably giggling with delight at how they're going to use this."
— Chris Matthews during MSNBC live coverage during the 3pm hour, May 9, shortly after ABC released clips of Obama's statement on same-sex marriage.

The "Too Far Right" GOP vs. "Voice of Bipartisanship"

"Do you think that the Republican Party has moved too far right for its own good? I mean, when you see the situation that's happened out in Indiana, where Richard Lugar, who's probably passed more significant legislation than any single member of the Senate right now, I would say — that I can think of — he might actually get beat in the primary because they think he's not conservative enough."
— Bob Schieffer to Peggy Noonan on CBS's Face the Nation, May 6.

Anchor Erin Burnett: "This is pretty tragic that we have gotten to this point where working together is a negative thing...."
CNN Contributor John Avlon: "If you are frustrated with the way Washington isn't working, with the division and dysfunction, this primary is an important reason why. Right now reaching across the aisle to try to solve a problem is a hanging offense in the Republican Party primaries."
— From CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, May 8.

Loving Lugar's "Prescient" Anti-Conservative Manifesto

"Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar did not go quietly, after losing his primary contest Tuesday in Indiana to a Tea Party-backed challenger, Richard Mourdock. And if there is one thing the American people need to read today, it is his farewell missive, which may prove to be as prescient and long lasting as Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 exit speech warning of the coming military industrial complex."
— Time magazine White House correspondent Michael Scherer in a May 9 post for the magazine's "Swampland" blog.

"Not only was it a manifesto, it was an incredibly eloquent manifesto. There have been a number of people who've been chased out of the party now, and none have either had the courage or the position [of Lugar]."
— Scherer on MSNBC's Daily Rundown, May 10.

"Diverse" Democrats vs. "Conservative White Guys"

"Do you have a problem with being inclusive, because most people do look at Republicans, going ‘They're a conservative bunch of white guys who want to protect Big Oil.' And now you're even hearing Republicans saying, ‘It's not big enough. We haven't opened up the tent door.'...It's not as diverse as the Democratic Party. You'd concede that."
— Host Candy Crowley to former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on CNN's State of the Union, May 6.

Can We Blame Obama's Woes on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

"We've talked before. I've asked you about the — the fact that Washington doesn't work very well right now, and hasn't for now a number of years that coincides with — Obama-Biden being in the White House. And you've been very critical of Republicans. Do you think that there is a modern right-wing conspiracy that has aligned against this President?"
— Moderator David Gregory to Vice President Biden on NBC's Meet the Press, May 6.

CBS Entranced by Liberal Plea for More Massive Spending

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "If we could get our politicians to move and do the right thing, we could be out of this [bad economy] very fast....The right thing is, actually, to spend more. Right now, you know, we have a long-term budget problem, but now is not the time to be slashing. Now is not the time to be laying off school teachers...."
Co-host Gayle King: "But you say that it could take seven years if we keep going the way we're going. And if we follow your advice, it would take-?"
Krugman: "Eighteen months, two years."
King: "So why aren't people listening to you, Paul Krugman? I love that President Obama, in Rolling Stone — did you see that? — he called you one of the smartest economic reporters?...I have a feeling, Paul Krugman, they might take your call if you called up the White House and said, hey, guys, I've got an idea."
— CBS This Morning, April 30.

Which Way Is It?

"Economy Continues on Path of Growth"
"Americans have ratcheted up their spending on cars, clothes and furniture, new figures show, and their fortitude at the cash register is energizing the recovery."
— Headline and lead sentence of a front-page Washington Post story by Peter Whoriskey, April 28.

vs.

"Economic Growth Slows Unexpectedly to 2.2%"
"The economic recovery slowed more than expected early this year, raising fears of a spring slowdown for the third year in a row and giving Republicans a fresh opportunity to criticize President Obama's policies."
— Headline and lead sentence of a "Business Day" section item by Shaila Dewan in the New York Times, same day.

Awed by Obama's "Even Keel" Amid Fears of a "Waterloo"

[VIDEO] "Keeping this secret also meant going on about the business of the presidency. Touring that awful storm damage in Alabama, while knowing at that very moment U.S. Navy SEALs were already on the move halfway around the world. (to Obama) You had to go to Tuscaloosa. You had to go have fun at the Correspondents' Dinner. Seth Meyers makes a joke about Osama Bin Laden. How do you keep an even keel? Even when we look back on the videotape of that night, there's no real depiction that there's something afoot."...
"If this had failed in spectacular fashion, it would have blown up your presidency, I think, by all estimates. It would have been your Waterloo and perhaps your Watergate, consumed with hearings and inquiries. How thick did the specter of Jimmy Carter, Desert One hang in the air here?"
— Brian Williams to President Obama during his May 2 Rock Center special on the first anniversary of the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

A Campaign Between "Gordon Gekko" and "Henry V"

"Well, that's great stuff. I was so proud of the President there, I must say. This has nothing to do with partisanship. This is a commander-in-chief meeting with the troops, as it was right out of Henry V, actually, a touch of Barry in this case in the night for those soldiers risking their lives over there....I was so proud of him there, because I imagine being a soldier over there, this is what you want to hear, that the troops are backed up by the people at home, and there you had your commander-in-chief there with you personally. It's great stuff."
— Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, May 1, after live coverage of Obama's speech to troops in Afghanistan.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "He is pitching himself as a guy who has spent his life fixing the problem, which is turning things around. You can agree or disagree with this concept, but turning things around: the Salt Lake City Olympics; companies with Bain he would put in there; he would put Massachusetts in there, though many people would disagree. Turning things around, that he is a fix-it artist."
Host Chris Matthews: "Chris, how's that different than Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, greed is good?"
— MSNBC's Hardball, May 7.

Don't Pick on Jimmy

Host Ed Schultz: "I think he [Mitt Romney] owes Jimmy Carter an apology. I mean, Jimmy Carter put lives on the line and made a tough call....It's low rent, it's a cheap shot...."
MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe: "Here's a President who had a ten times better job record than President Bush did. He was responsible for Camp David. That's not a bad record for anyone, certainly for someone who's had one term as a Massachusetts governor. It's time to pay a little bit more respect than that."
— MSNBC's The Ed Show, April 30, talking about Romney's statement that "even Jimmy Carter" would have ordered last year's raid on bin Laden.

How Low Will MSNBC Stoop?

"We know that Ann Romney has herself had some suffering in the form of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). She's also suffered with breast cancer. Do you think that he's intentionally using her to close the gender gap?"
— MSNBC's Martin Bashir, April 25.

"Toxic" Fox News Exploiting America's "Suckers"

"At least for Americans — Fox News is Murdoch's most toxic legacy....I doubt that people at Fox News really believe their programming is ‘fair and balanced' — that's just a slogan for the suckers....We [other news organizations] try to live by a code, a discipline, that tells us to set aside our personal biases, to test not only facts but the way they add up, to seek out the dissenters and let them make their best case, to show our work. We write unsparing articles about public figures of every stripe — even, sometimes, about ourselves. When we screw up — and we do — we are obliged to own up to our mistakes and correct them. Fox does not live by that code."
— Former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a May 6 column.

Oozing Over "So Romantic" Obama's Pretentious Poetry

[VIDEO] "One of the perils of being President: Everything you ever wrote will become public. And today, Barack Obama, age 22 — long before he met Michelle — new letters and diary entries revealed in Vanity Fair from a biography out soon....The future president writes adoringly about life in New York. Quote, ‘Moments trip gently along over here. Snow caps the bushes in unexpected ways. Birds shoot and spin like balls of sound. My feet hum over the dry walks.' Oh, we were all so romantic when we were young."
— Diane Sawyer on World News, May 2.

"Now we know that Mitt Romney loves to paint the President as a European-style socialist, which is incredible. And he weighed in today....How does Romney do that when he knows that it's him who supports rank austerity measures? He supports Paul Ryan's budget. He wants to go cut, cut, cut. It's not [the] President, it's him. He's the European socialist."
— Host Martin Bashir on MSNBC's Martin Bashir, May 7.

Scolding a Play "Straight Out of a Far-Right Handbook"

[VIDEO] "Ever since that failure [of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion], exploiting anti-communist fears to portray Castro as a monstrous boogeyman has been a cottage industry in Florida and Washington. While many have certainly assailed Fidel and still do for very legitimate reasons, others simply hate that he overthrew their dictator, Fulgencio Batista, whose corrupt government helped enriched privileged Cubans and American interests at the expense of the country's poorest people....Whipping up a frenzy over slights real and imagined is a play straight out of a far-right handbook, and Florida's electoral cloud has often given Fidel's critics far more leverage than their arguments merit."
— HBO Real Sports host Bryant Gumbel, April 17, talking about the uproar over Florida Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen telling Time magazine "I love Fidel Castro," a comment for which Guillen later apologized.

Family Turned Out Fine, Except for Brother Who "Became a Republican"

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski: "It happened overnight, and all of a sudden we were going to the White House all the time and traveling around the world...."
Host David Letterman: "What about the brothers? How did they fit into this? Did they take it in the stride?"
Brzezinski: "Well, one became a Republican, so I don't think he turned out so well."
— Brzezinski on CBS's Late Show with David Letterman, May 8, talking about her childhood after her father, Zbignew Brzezinski, became President Carter's National Security Advisor in 1977.

As America Deteriorates, Celebrities Like Obama "More and More"

"I've grown to like him more and more. You know, I was always — I've just been a fan of his, if you could say that about a President. So that's the other kind of good part of it, is you know, getting to like him more and more."
— Saturday Night Live's Obama impersonator Fred Armisen on NBC's Meet the Press "Press Pass" segment, April 29.

Mitt Just a Puppet of "Women Hating Tea Baggers"

"If ROMNEY gets elected I don't know if i can breathe same air as Him & his Right Wing Racist Homophobic Women Hating Tea Bagger Masters"
— Actress/singer Cher in a May 8 Twitter posting that was later deleted (grammar and punctuation as in the original).

The Left "War on Women" Narrative Failing as Romney Pulls Ahead of Obama Among Women

And this coming from the left-friendly New York Times.I guess the Dems will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with some other lie to try and distract American voters from the obvious fact that Obama has no idea how to govern.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Where Are the Obama Comparisons?

For all the left's whining and usual hypocrisy about Mitt Romney "hiding" his past (unlike the current occupier of the White House who still refuses to release his school records) or bringing up something out of his past that's about 50 years old (again, unlike Obama's recent associations with Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers that the media pooh-poohed as insignificant or that Obama himself stated because he was young, it was irrelevant) they sure are quick to defend the secrets of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue while castigating everyone else they see as a threat to their Socialist Shangri-La.

MSNBC Host Tamron Hall Shows Her "Network's" Fascist Policies

MSNBC's Tamron Hall shows very clearly how her "network's" hosts are quite content to have on liberal guests and Democrat politicians on their shows to berate and lie about Republican bills, policies and statements as well as making misleading statements themselves about conservative pundits, commentators and authors all the while white-washing the facts about their favorite heroes, especially around election time.

This has been known to be done on the right as well. But not even close to the Soviet-style censorship that Hall exhibits in this piece. Here she is doing exactly what her guest, conservative columnist Tim Carney says she is doing about an interview (and a non-story) with a local reporter had with Mitt Romney. Carney calls her on her sideshow tactics (as is the norm with the clowns at The Mess) and she then tries to cover herself by trying to reverse the situation, blaming Carney. She then does the true American thing-MSNBC style- and cuts him off to go t another guest. Moreover, she taunts Carney and shows her true, arrogant liberal, bias ways by putting Carney back on screen but without his mic on so she can berate him some more. Typical left-wing fashion. This was done before on MSNBC on Morning Joe when co-host Mika Brzezinski had Florida pastor Terry Jones on simply cut off his mic and admonish him for his ridiculous, yet constitutionally-protected civil rights.

You may not like the opinions at FOX News, but at least they let their numerous liberal contributors-something you will not find at The Mess-voice their opinions without being censored.
Even CNN's Howard Kurtz had to call Hall on her obvious state-run, communist ways.

Par for the course for the "network" who pride themselves on "Bending Over" for the Democrats.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Goldberg Back for More with Morgan; Unloads on Democrat Water-Carrier

TRANSCRIPT:

PIERS MORGAN: Here's the thing that I found quite ironic, I guess, which is that after our last exchange, which I quite enjoyed, actually, but there was an assumption made I think by you, and then by your army of supporters online, which becomes like a kind of – like a new invading Twitter, Facebook online Roman army, crashing towards me. And the general consensus was I was this screaming wet liberal who had been basically defying the right, which I found in itself a very cliche presumption. Because I'm not a screaming wet liberal at all. I just happen to disagree with you on that particular story.

(...)

JONAH GOLDBERG: And so subsequently on this point, and I think it ties into the book and it ties into your question, I went back and I looked at the interviews you did over the last week with other guests on your shows, with actual newsmakers, not just some guy with a book that you clearly didn't know who I was beforehand. You had Dan Rather on, you had David Axelrod. And the way you interviewed them, it seems to me, again from my cliched conservative perspective, it seems to me that the way you interviewed them was far less prosecutorial, far less adversarial, sometimes bordered on a level of sort of dictation-taking, where you didn't question their premise –

MORGAN: Oh don't be so ridiculous. Jonah, now listen. Listen. I'll put up with this to a certain degree, but let's just --

GOLDBERG: That's very gracious of you.

MORGAN: -- get it in perspective. I have interviewed far more Republican politicians, for example, this year than I have Democrats. Far more.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, okay.

MORGAN: I've interviewed Rick Santorum maybe a dozen times, Newt Gingrich, six or seven times, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney. None of them have ever accused me of having a liberal bias against them. I like to give it a fair crack of the whip. I can't vote anyway. I don't have a horse in the race.
What I was reacting to was the fact that you came on with a very provocative book, "The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas," and I will concede, if you read the book, you say look, Republicans do it, too, the right do this, too. But it's the hypocrisy of the liberals that you were attacking.
But on that particular day there happened to be a story about Barack Obama going to Afghanistan celebrating the anniversary of the death of bin Laden, bringing out this commercial with Bill Clinton, and I happen to believe quite strongly – not from a left or right perspective, or a screaming fascist or liberal view – I believe quite strongly he was perfectly entitled to do that. I didn't think he was spiking the football. I felt anybody who was president of the United States, Republican or Democrat, who had taken out bin Laden, a year on was entitled to remind people of that fact.

(Crosstalk)

GOLDBERG: Piers, here's the thing. I agreed with you. More than once on this point. But you seem to want to put me into a box, turn me into a strawman that I am not, and say that somehow I was arguing he had no right to do it.
My objection was with how the Obama ad treated the question of Mitt Romney. And what I tried to convey to you more than once was the fact that what you were quoting Mitt Romney out of context. You were – the point Mitt Romney was trying to make when he says you don't spend billions and move heaven and earth to save Osama bin Laden, is the same thing that you would say you don't fight World War II just to kill Adolf Hitler. You fight World War II to win World War II. You fight the war on terror to win the war on terror.
The next day in the Republican debate, Mitt Romney as asked about this in a follow up question, and he said, of course you take your chance to get bin Laden if you have it. My objection was with your characterization, where you didn't even mention the Mitt Romney part in the ad, and you trying to bully me into saying that I didn't think Obama had a right to gloat about it. I think he has every right to gloat about it.

(...)

GOLDBERG: But you kept interrupting me, you wouldn't let me answer questions. You asked me these sort of fake questions asked on false premises, and then you wouldn't let me answer them or clear the air. And I think that's --
(...)

MORGAN: So if we'd had that debate tonight, you wouldn't be calling me a screaming liberal, would you? That's why I come back to –

GOLDBERG: No, you keep saying I called you a screaming liberal --
(Crosstalk)

GOLDBERG: I have never once called you a screaming liberal. All I've said is that you proved the point of – that I made at the beginning of that interview which is that you were very one-sided. You kept saying, I don't believe in ideology, I don't have an agenda, I'm not partisan, and then you kept carrying water for the Obama perspective in a way that struck a lot of people as sort of one-sided and unfair, and you weren't listening to the actual answers I was giving. That's all. I've never called you a screaming liberal, never called you a fascist, I've never done any of those things.

When the White House came calling to hand-pick an interviewer for a one-on-one with President Obama, according to CNN White House correspondent Frank Sesno, ABC's Robin Roberts was chosen due to the administration's wanting of a "conversation across the back of the fence," for more lefty media sycophants asking the president why he's so awesome, instead of someone that would actually ask them hard-nose questions that matter that Americans are interested in and want answered. But apparently obama is only interested in having someone with Roberts "personal rapport...friendship [and] past interviews."
But most interesting, was the "perameters" of why Obama's media babysitters chose Roberts:
[She] is amiable on TV, and having her across from the president
suggested a soft and easy conversation"
another reason is that "... she is a woman, a breast-cancer survivor and the co-host of a
morning program that does not regularly feature battles among talking
heads helped enhance this effect."

But most intriguing, but sadly not surprising coming from Obama, Roberts was hand-picked to be his softball pitcher because, "Roberts is African American...she’s friendly turf. I assume if Oprah was still Oprah, she would have landed this interview.”
Because we all know how hard-hitting an interviewer Oprah Winfrey is. The one that coined "The One" would certainly pry information out of Obama like he was being water-boarded, that's for damn sure.

Jon Lovitz Still Upset at Obama's Lies about Taxes

He's getting about the same airtime as anyone that would call a Democrat president and an a**h*le (even in the premise of a "joke") but not nearly as much insults or calls for his head and/or career as a right-winger would such as Rush Limbaugh.

Comedian Jon Lovitz of Saturday Night Live fame weeks ago called President Obama an "asshole" in a comedy act that was apparently more truthful frustration than light-hearted comedy, because Lovitz heard the lies of Obama's reasons for wanting to tax the rich even more to "spread the wealth" and Lovitz knows it has nothing to do with paying "your fair share."
So after defending baseless allegations about making threats to the president on the Dr. Drew Show, here is Lovitz on the O'Reilly Factor discussing how Obama "makes him angry" with his lies on taxes.
But I think Lovitz and his friends will still vote for Obama. Even after they got a small piece of his Gangster Government/Saul Alinsky tactics

Robert Barro: The Failure of Stimulus Spending

By Robert J. Barro

The weak economic
recovery in the U.S. and the even weaker performance in much of Europe
have renewed calls for ending budget austerity and returning to larger
fiscal deficits. Curiously, this plea for more fiscal expansion fails to
offer any proof that Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries that chose more budget stimulus have
performed better than those that opted for more austerity. Similarly, in
the American context, no evidence is offered that past U.S. budget
deficits (averaging 9% of GDP between 2009 and 2011) helped to promote
the economic recovery.
Two interesting European cases are
Germany and Sweden, each of which moved toward rough budget balance
between 2009 and 2011 while sustaining comparatively strong growth—the
average growth rate per year of real GDP for 2010 and 2011 was 3.6% for
Germany and 4.9% for Sweden. If austerity is so terrible, how come these
two countries have done so well?
The OECD countries most clearly in or
near renewed recession—Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and perhaps
Ireland and the Netherlands—are among those with relatively large fiscal
deficits. The median of fiscal deficits for these six countries for
2010 and 2011 was 7.9% of GDP. Of course, part of this pattern reflects a
positive effect of weak economic growth on deficits, rather than the
reverse. But there is nothing in the overall OECD data since 2009 that
supports the Keynesian view that fiscal expansion has promoted economic
growth.
For the U.S., my view is that the
large fiscal deficits had a moderately positive effect on GDP growth in
2009, but this effect faded quickly and most likely became negative for
2011 and 2012. Yet many Keynesian economists look at the weak U.S.
recovery and conclude that the problem was that the government lacked
sufficient commitment to fiscal expansion; it should have been even
larger and pursued over an extended period.

This viewpoint is dangerously unstable. Every time heightened fiscal
deficits fail to produce desirable outcomes, the policy advice is to
choose still larger deficits. If, as I believe to be true, fiscal
deficits have only a short-run expansionary impact on growth and then
become negative, the results from following this policy advice are
persistently low economic growth and an exploding ratio of public debt
to GDP.
The last conclusion is not just
academic, because it fits with the behavior of Japan over the past two
decades. Once a comparatively low public-debt nation, Japan apparently
bought the Keynesian message many years ago. The consequence for today
is a ratio of government debt to GDP around 210%—the largest in the
world.
This vast fiscal expansion didn't
avoid two decades of sluggish GDP growth, which averaged less than 1%
per year from 1991 to 2011. No doubt, a committed Keynesian would say
that Japanese growth would have been even lower without the
extraordinary fiscal stimulus—but a little evidence would be nice.
Despite the lack of evidence, it is
remarkable how much allegiance the Keynesian approach receives from
policy makers and economists. I think it's because the Keynesian model
addresses important macroeconomic policy issues and is pedagogically
beautiful, no doubt reflecting the genius of Keynes. The basic
model—government steps in to spend when others won't—can be presented
readily to one's mother, who is then likely to buy the conclusions.
Keynes worshipers' faith in this model
has actually been strengthened by the Great Recession and the
associated financial crisis. Yet the empirical support for all this is
astonishingly thin. The Keynesian model asks one to turn economic common
sense on its head in many ways. For instance, more saving is bad
because of the resultant drop in consumer demand, and higher
productivity is bad because the increased supply of goods tends to lower
the price level, thereby raising the real value of debt. Meanwhile,
transfer payments that subsidize unemployment are supposed to lower
unemployment, and more government spending is good even if it goes to
wasteful projects.
Looking forward, there is a lot to say
on economic grounds for strengthening fiscal austerity in OECD
countries. From a political perspective, however, the movement toward
austerity may be difficult to sustain in some countries, notably in
France and Greece where leftists and other anti-austerity groups just
won elections.
Consequently, there is likely to be
increasing diversity across countries in fiscal policies, and this
divergence will likely make it increasingly hard to sustain the euro as a
common currency. On the plus side, the differing policies will provide
better data to analyze the economic consequences of austerity.

Obama Plays the Odds and Finally, Officially Flips on Gay Marriage; Or Did He?

Just before Vice-President Joe Biden went on Ellen to decry California's "Proposition 8" back in October 2008, his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama was on television giving his opinion on how he supported traditional marriage, after of course he said he supported same-sex marriage in 1996 while still a Illinois State Senator. Which means he was lying to the American people...again.
Why did he flip on such a socially important topic? Twice? Well, his party and defenders will (and have) say Obama's opinion on the subject has "evolved." See, only democrats and Liberals get to have opinions that "evolve." Republicans and Conservatives (even Libertarians to an extent) are "flip-floppers" They don't get the luxury of getting to change their minds.

They say the epitome of conservatism is "the status quo." Bill Mahr recently made a joke about how if your a real conservative, you have to have the same opinion when your 18 as when your 78. He said it as an insult. You see, "everybody knows" conservatives are mindless, unforgiving robots that are unable to "evolve" and must always, always adhere to the strict, stiff, linear doctrine of the "extreme" right. So when a lefty, such as the infallible Barack Obama does it, he is afforded that luxury. Because you see he had to have been mistaken, therefore, he is given four years latitude to correct himself and make the correct decision. But only because he's a left-wing demagogue that can still probably walk on water if he really wanted to.

But why now? Why didn't Obama stake this claim long ago? Why didn't he address this "historic" decision at his first State of the Union? Surely such a socially important and historic opinion deserved a grand platform and a nation-wide audience. But alas, it was left to the Vice-President to divulge the Commander-in-Chief's seemingly secret and not-so-important opinion on a daytime talk-show with minimal ratings. As I mentioned, the president's initial opinion was he was "more or less" against gay marriage. And this was before he totally misrepresented DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)-or as Obama put it, the Defense Against Marriage. Once again demonstrating that he either a) does not read anything put out in front of him and is not nearly as intelligent as his followers want him to be, or b) he didn't really care for traditional marriage to begin with. The timing of his now "fully evolved" opinion on the matter beginning to take shape.

Could it be the real reason Obama is now coming out of his shell to embrace gay marriage (like he always has?) and anyone who doesn't is just a plain old fool, regardless of why they don't, other than political expedience? Could it be a simple matter of cultural relevance and media complacency? It's not surprising that Obama's little revelation comes at a time when seemingly every member of the mainstream media is slobberingly in favor two people of the same sex tying the knot and are only too happy to let you know about it-you know, the people that, professionally speaking, are not supposed to have an opinion? Add to that Hollywood's embracing of the former taboo subject. Gay characters and story lines (mostly supportive ones) are now a regular thing with of a lot of writers of both the big and small screen. There are major gay characters and gay-themed shows Will & Grace and Glee (or at least in Glee's case, it seems like a pro-gay message) and before them there was the deplorable Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, with the cast presenting (the first and only as far as I know) Best Gay Hero Award at the MTVAwards (yes there was a Best gay Hero Award)
There was also the critically-acclaimed and dipped-so-much-in-Oscar-sauce-it-made-you-sick, Brokeback Mountain
It now permeates as a social construct, or at least a social barometer. If you write about it favorably, you're a decent human being and you may continue on with your life unabated and unabashed. If not, and especially if you publicly decry gay marriage, you are now a pariah, unfit to breathe the same air as the rest of the righteous heroes of a now more enlightened society. Either that or the Prez always supported gay marriage and had to seem torn about it for the real political expediency.
Come to think of it, that's what he was in fact doing. He wasn't flip-flopping, he was lying! Again! And his acolytes bought it and defended it from day one. Do you think they have any idea how much Obama used them and made complete fools of them? Do you think they will care and still defend him?

But having said all this, does the President of the United States' opinion on this matter, or any social matter really mean anything? Does it really have that much sway with Suzy Homemaker or Larry Lunchpail? Most polls-or if you're like me and don't really trust or have the need for polls-documented history shows that no it doesn't. Look for instance at the aforementioned Proposition 8. The California Democrats spent millions in trying to convince people that the proposed bill was inhumane. That it was unconstitutional. It didn't matter what all the Ivy-League politicians or brain-dead celebrities said, traditional marriage was defended by a large majority in one of the most liberal states in the Union.
In any event, it's still a state-to-state decision and I can't see traditional marriage being in such a great deal of trouble to the point of it's eradication. At least not without a huge fight and decisions going back and forth in the courts, if it even gets to that point.

Some people like Red
State's Erick Erickson and even (yikes!) Slate
editor David Plotz have seemingly seen through Barry's charade.
FOX News liberal contributor Kirsten Powers called it best. Obama's "historic" flip is "less evolution and more intelligent design."
But anyways, yeah, President Obama has no balls. Whatever it takes...Chicago style.

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street

Capital champion and entrepreneur Peter Schiff talks common sense with sincerity and patience as a representative of the one percent to explain the benefits of true capitalism to the 99 percent at Occupy Wall Street.
If America got back to true capitalism that is enshrined in the Constitution, everyone could benefit. The pursuit of happiness is an alienable right.

Yet Another Black on White Crime MSM Chooses to Ignore

That's chooses to ignore. As Bill O'Reilly points out, the story has been on FOX for about four days and apart from CNN's Howard Kurtz reporting it on his Reliable Sources show (but not any CNN news desk coverage) not one single mainstream media outlet has decided it is worthy of coverage.

When oh when will the media start doing it's job and stop trying to inflame the seeds of racial hatred in that only whites commit racial-based crimes? Considering the fact that blacks commit 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the
black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population, you'd figure the MSM would at least try and tell the truth when it's very easy for the average person to research and to call them out on their dishonest bias.

Monday, May 07, 2012

Allen West's No Holds Barred Speech at Lincoln Day Dinner

This is the man the Republicans should be running for the presidency. He would be a no-nonsense ass kicker, he'd actually be a forthright, stand-up example of a black conservative and one that they would be proud to have represent them instead of the Socialist racist in the Oval Office now that does nothing for the black community but to uphold the Democrat tradition of keeping them down and lying to them about their party's history to demand votes from them.

Ted Nugent Rips into CBS Correspondent for Saying He is Not "Moderate"

In an interview that aired on Friday's CBS This Morning, conservative
rocker Ted Nugent let loose at CBS correspondent Jeff Glor when Glor
suggested he was extreme.

Fellow lefty Charlie Rose "brilliantly" surmised that if Nugent "cares about being known for doing things for
the little kids, the better way to do that is not to talk about other
people being criminals."

This most definitely will not cause any sort of "Rush Limbaugh national crisis," but at the very least, a slap on the wrist of this demeaning woman should be forthcoming. Yeah, right.

"I didn't call you a name." Because, you know, calling a "bow-tying white boy" a "bow-tying white boy" is not insulting or racist. It's only normal to the left and not the least bit "controversial" because they've been doing it for so long without anyone of their peers giving them any corrections or admonishment.

SEALS to "Swiftboat" Obama?

With one ad already demonstrating their displeasure of President Obama's "spiking the football" over the assassination of Usama bin Laden last May, the veteran's group; Veterans for a Strong America, with past and present Navy SEALS as concerned members, are apparently none too pleased with the POTUS these days.

Friday, May 04, 2012

Fox News Receives the Ultimate Honor from al Qaeda Letter

Although the left has made their thoughts about the perpetual cable ratings-leader FOX News absolutely clear with their jealously all to see, FOX has received an honor that they can and should be proud of: they are unequivocally hated by al Qaeda.

This is not really something MSNBC can accurately claim. Still sucks to be them.

Thursday, May 03, 2012

The Obama Afghanistan Speech

Please Note: While editing this post, this new Blogger format has really screwed up the way I used to do things. In short, sorry about the crappy blocks around the text. I tried and tried, but as it sometimes happens, I can't get rid of them or fix the overall aesthetics problem.

While I was re-reading the transcript of President Obama's May 1
Afghanistan speech, I noticed a few things I would like to share and
doubt many in the MSM (at least in the correct context) will shine a
negative light on.

There was some typical narcissistic
tones emanating from the president that while his followers will no
doubt find charming and confident, it does play to the fact that Barack
Obama never passes on a chance to inflate his own ego or play loose with
the facts. This has been documented time and time again, and not just
by conservatives or right-wingers, but by liberal pundits and
journalists that perhaps have finally grown weary of the president's
Hollywood-esque showmanship and rhetoric without the actual facts and/or
numbers to back them up. The kind of rhetoric that not only Democrat
politicians support and defend, which is to be expected, but from
frothing, starry-eyed Hollywood celebrities who make it even more ironic
for them to be idolizing him. But it's the following
highlighted quotes that these celebrities, Dems and left-wing media
darlings run with that confuse and misinform America and the world.
They've already sold a alternative version of history to the American
voter about the "saved' economy, the "needed" auto bailouts, the
"popular" health-care law and the role of the Republicans in the
financial meltdown...and only that the Republicans had a role.

Obama,
of course doesn't mention these fallacies, but it's just the type of
ethos in this speech that sold those tainted goods to the American
taxpayer and voter in the first place.

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than
seven
thousand miles from home, but for over a decade it has been close to our
hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our
sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed an historic
agreement between the United States and
Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our
countries – a future in which Afghans are responsible for the
security
of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign
states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

*This agreement was originally made/confirmed with the Bush
administration when Secretary of State Condolezza Rice visited
Afghanistan in 2007.

Tonight, I’d like to speak to you about
this transition. But first,
let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where
Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization.
It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits,
trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these
borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killednearly 3,000
innocent men, women and children.

And
so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war
to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch
attacks against us. Despite initial success...

*A success that Obama (as a Illinois State
senator) and
the Democrats vehemently denied for years until documentation and Afghan
testimony gave them no choice but to publicly admit the obvious-not to
admit they were wrong, but just make them admit the obvious.

... for a number of reasons,
this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and
his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe-havens in
Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in
Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a
brutal insurgency.

But over
the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the
Taliban’s momentum.

*The Taliban has been routed in
Afghanistan since at least 2004, but Obama says "the last three years"
because, conveniently that's how long he's been president.

We’ve built strong Afghan Security Forces. We
devastated al Qaeda’s leadership,taking out over 20 of their top
30
leaders.

Again
accomplished mostly during the Bush administration. In fact, 18 of
those leaders disposed of during Bush's tenure.

And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops
launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I
set–
to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.

*Really? Does this one really need an explanation? Any easy research will
find-and backed up by former administration officials in both the
Clinton and Bush administrations-that the apparatus to retrieve
information and find bin Laden was under the intelligence leadership of
those two presidents, As well as Obama's in the last three years, but to
say he set that goal is not only willfully misleading, but extremely
arrogant. Clearly a set-up to wrangle himself up some street-cred on
the War on Terror and to make the false argument that he was the man
that got bin Laden. Any president would have made that no-brainer call-any
president.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of
our
men and women are not over. But tonight, I’d like to tell you how we
will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

*I believe this
is the first time he has mentioned the word "our," instead of "I," "me,"
or "mine" since the beginning of his presidency. Just a personal
observation.

First, we have begun a transition to
Afghan responsibility for
security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in places where
Afghan Security Forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO
Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to
be
in the lead for combat operations across the country next year.
International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the
Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a
support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we
removed
10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the
end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady
pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed,
by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the
security of their country.

*This is a simple
copy of the Bush troop withdrawal agreement he signed with Iraq. Is he
again copying something Bush did (and the Democrats and MSM
collectively shat on) only to have his party and media call brilliant
and not at all bombastic?

Second, we are training Afghan Security Forces to get the job done.
Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The
Afghans will sustain that level for three years, and then reduce the
size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to
support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Again, an Iraq-tested
and successful Bush plan.

Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we*
signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand
up**, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our
cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat
terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan
efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it
includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to
protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and women, boys and girls.

*There's that "we" again. Maybe he's turning over a new...nah!

**A total stolen (with no accreditation) Bushism.

Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine
what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond
2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not
build
permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities
and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

*And yet another Bush explanation as to
why Iraq was not to be controlled by the U.S.

Fourth, we are pursuing a negotiated
peace. In coordination with the
Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with
the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this
future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by
Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders
– have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now
set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan
Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth,
we are building a global
consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago,
the
international community will express support for this plan, and for
Afghanistan’s future. I have made it clear to Afghanistan’s neighbor –
Pakistan – that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in
a way that respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, interests, and democratic
institutions. In pursuit of a durable peace.

*Nothin' for nothin', but what's
up with his mentioning of Chicago likes it's Washington Jr? I don't
remember Bush mentioning Crawford, Texas like it was a political hub.
Not even Clinton metioned Hope or Arkansas so much. Just sayin'.

America has no designs
beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan
sovereignty.

As we move forward,
some people will ask why we need a firm timeline.
The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America’s
image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives
would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American
lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do
exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a
lasting peace. That requires a clear timeline to wind down the war.

Others will ask why we don’t leave
immediately. That answer is also
clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise,
our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more.
And as Commander-in-Chief, I refuse to let that happen.

I
recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As President,
nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the
fallen, or looking in the eyes of a child who will grow up without a
mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harm’s way a single
day
longer than is absolutely required for our national security.

*Bush too, said this at the onset
of the Iraq War, but was called Hitler and a war criminal anyways
(unlike Obama who armed and aided Libyan rebels that killed
civilians-during a time when he claimed to have "gotten Gaddafi" and
none of the "Impeach Bush" hippie crowd has said anything about Obama's
role in these unfortunate deaths. Even Code Pink has been predictably
silent.

But we
must finish the job we started in Afghanistan, and end this war
responsibly.

My fellow
Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade
under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of
Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq
War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in
half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill
our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

*Again, I'm surprised he didn't say "the last
administration," or "what the last guy started," or "what I inherited."

This future is only within reach because
of our men and women in
uniform. Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant
and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up
short, these Americans stood tall. They met their responsibilities to
one another, and the flag they serve under. I just met with some of
them, and told them that as Commander-in-Chief, I could not be prouder.
In their faces, we see what is best in ourselves and our country.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coast
guardsmen and civilians
in Afghanistan have done their duty. Now, we must summon that same
sense of common purpose. We must give our veterans and military families
the support they deserve, and the opportunities they have earned. And
we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their
sacrifice.

*What, no mention of Corpsmen?

As we emerge from a decade of conflict
abroad and economic crisis at
home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live
free from fear, and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united
America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new
towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as
one nation.

Here, in Afghanistan, Americans answered the call
to defend their
fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. Today, we recall the fallen,
and those who suffer wounds seen and unseen. But through dark days we
have drawn strength from their example, and the ideals that have guided
our nation and lit the world: a belief that all people are created
equal, and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

That is the light that guides us still*.
This time of war began in
Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. With faith in each other and
our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand, and forge
a just and lasting peace. May God bless our troops. And may God
bless
the United States of America.**

*Really, a Reagan line?

**Which
god would that be?

Listen, I don't
mean to demonize the president or his speech when he did give credit to
the members of America's Armed Forces, as well as those of her allies.
Even that last "which god" crack was just that. But for a guy who was
against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and don't give me that "good
war/bad war" crap) who voted "present' on every major vote concerning
the War on Terror as a senator, who was against the surge that led to
victory (and then never admitting he was wrong about it) to claim credit
on things that he either had hardly anything to do with or nothing at
all-or worse, things he fought tooth and nail against is more than
political posturing and "what every politician does." It's something
that a "leader" that's not a leader does. Someone who doesn't really
beileve in what they're saying. He may sound good (as every one of his
followers-or is that believers, since he is their messiah-constantly say
s he does; even with the studdering and stammering) but anyone can with
good writers, and yes, that includes W. Of course Ronald Reagan wrote
most of his own speeches, but that's another story of another time about
another, better man.

But for all his belittling George W. about what he
"inherited" from him, Obama's sure quick to not only jump on the same
policy wagon (war & bail-outs to name but two) but to actually
take a page out of Joe Biden's book and plagiarize, if not parts, then
ideas of Bush's speeches? Sad.

Like most of President Obama's speeches,
there's nothing new here, especially the so-called information or
revelations therein. Same ol', same ol from Barack Obama, especially
disappointment.